Pages

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

On The Origin of Security

A whiff of NSA "Security"

The attacks continue against those of us who want to stick with traditional America and its Constitution.

Some of it is because we reject those whose minds inhabit Stalingrad, Bullshitistan, the home of the imagination of the McTell news Stalinists, and some of it is because they really do not know what planet they are on or what country they are in (The Queens of Stalingrad - 2).

They are on the attack again against our traditional desire for freedom from government intrusion, due in part to their vapid imaginations having now perverted the meaning of the word "security" as defined in the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

We who adhere to constitutional law have a different definition of security than those in the media who are hawking a phony security.

The constitutional definition of "security" in this context is in the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(4th Amendment, emphasis added). This means that security comes from the definition of "reasonable" in that Amendment, with respect to searches or seizures.

Reasonable searches, those that do not cause insecurity, must be based on:

a) of the place to be searched
b) of the persons or things to be seized

(Nolo). The NSA dragnet seizure of everyone's innocent private telephone information that destroys security is exemplified in this example:

Example: Hoping to obtain a warrant to search Olive Martini’s backyard, a police officer submits an affidavit to a magistrate. The affidavit states that “the undersigned is informed that Olive operates an illegal still in her backyard.” The magistrate should not issue a search warrant based on this affidavit. Because the affidavit is too vague and the source of the information is unstated, there’s no way for the magistrate to evaluate its reliability. The affidavit doesn’t establish probable cause.

(The Criminal Law Handbook, by P. Bergman and S. J. Berman). Where any of the required warrant information is missing, but a search takes place regardless, it is a destruction of security, not the establishment of security.

What Haas says is bunk and intellectual tripe, not fit for use by decent citizens; but Haas is not a lone groupie in his trance like state of insecurity:

Sen. Ron Wyden says Director of National Intelligence James Clapper did not give him a "straight answer" to his question about the NSA data collection operation at an Intelligence Committee hearing in March. That's despite the fact that Clapper knew the question was coming. Here's Wyden's statement:

“One of the most important responsibilities a Senator has is oversight of the intelligence community. This job cannot be done responsibly if Senators aren’t getting straight answers to direct questions. When NSA Director Alexander failed to clarify previous public statements about domestic surveillance, it was necessary to put the question to the Director of National Intelligence. So that he would be prepared to answer, I sent the question to Director Clapper’s office a day in advance. After the hearing was over my staff and I gave his office a chance to amend his answer. Now public hearings are needed to address the recent disclosures and the American people have the right to expect straight answers from the intelligence leadership to the questions asked by their representatives.”

Clapper has argued that the question was unfair, "like 'When are you going to stop beating your wife?'" and that he and Wyden just weren't talking about the same thing when they talked about "collection." But now we know that Clapper had a day to clarify with Wyden what he was going to be asked. That there could be any question about what Wyden was asking—about the NSA program that he had been briefed on and which has now been make public—has been laughable all along. Now that we know Clapper was clued in ahead of time, it's even more absurd.

(c) Copyright

All original material is copyrighted by Dredd Blog. You may quote or use the material so long as there is a link back to Dredd Blog for every post you use. This is, among other things, to verify that no Dredd Blog text was changed. It must remain the same, no editing. Note that Dredd Blog has no commercial purpose. If it so happens that Dredd Blog may quote copyrighted material from other writers, it is only for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

--the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

--the nature of the copyrighted work;

--the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

--and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." (17 U.S. Code § 107)